And v Ms C Rautureau Lycee Francais Charles De Gaulle Heard in person — 2024

The claimant worked as a PE teacher from 2 September 2002 until her dismissal on 16 September 2022. The tribunal recorded that the direct disability discrimination, harassment on account of disability, and indirect disability discrimination claims were withdrawn before the hearing concluded. It found that the reason for dismissal was conduct, namely concerns about pupil supervision and safety, so dismissal fell within section 98(2)(b) ERA 1996.

The tribunal held that the total procedure was unfair. It found the final written warning of 3 May 2022 should be disregarded because, although issued in good faith, its imposition was manifestly inappropriate. The tribunal said the grievance investigation into Mrs Deve's complaint moved into disciplinary concerns without sufficient particularity, the witness questioning allowed broad criticisms that were not all directly relevant, and the undisclosed investigation reports lacked objectivity. It also found the warning letter itself did not properly particularise the allegations or reflect the claimant's explanations.

For the dismissal arising from the 10 May 2022 incident, the tribunal accepted that the Respondent had genuine concerns about pupil safety but found the investigation was incomplete. It held that the Respondent had not properly investigated what arrangements existed when pupils returned from an off-site activity before the end-of-day bell, and had not questioned Mrs Humbert about why she did not intervene. The tribunal also found the disciplinary invitation letters lacked adequate detail, and it held that the appeal was unfair because Mr Foin, who had already taken part in the CCPL meeting and voted for dismissal, conducted the appeal.

On remedy principles, the tribunal said there was a 25% uplift to the compensatory award for breach of the ACAS Code, but it applied a 65% Polkey reduction and a further 50% reduction for contributory conduct. It held that the claimant's conduct on 10 May 2022 was blameworthy and reduced compensation accordingly, but it did not reduce the basic award. It also held that the claimant was entitled to an additional 11 days' gross pay for wrongful dismissal because her contractual notice period was three months and the dismissal letter gave only 12 weeks' notice. The tribunal listed a further remedy hearing for 14 March 2024.

The disability discrimination claims were rejected on the merits. The tribunal found that insomnia, ADHD/hyperactivity, and distress did not amount to a disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, either individually or cumulatively, and it added that it would in any event have found no actual or constructive knowledge of any qualifying disability. It therefore dismissed the discrimination arising from disability and reasonable adjustments claims.

The sex discrimination claims also failed. The tribunal accepted that a June 2023 article about Mr Devilard could support an inference that he had made misogynistic or sexually discriminatory remarks, and it found that he had made a remark described as 'alone in life', but it held that this did not show that the claimant was treated less favourably because of sex in the disciplinary process. It found that the burden of proof did not shift and that the claimant would have been treated the same if she had been male.